On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Our best position is to acknowledge the errors in Wikipedia that were identified by Nature, and to point out that we have worked to correct them. We needn't mention EB at all. We can hope that similar studies in the future will be helpful in discover further errors for us to correct. Admitting errors impresses the reading public more than defending them.. We need to remember that we are the ones arguing from a position of strength.
This is probably the best approach to take, to really differentiate us. EB, in response to a study of their errors, came out by attacking the study and the journal that sponsored it. We should make sure our response is praise for the journal - quite honestly, we *love* getting someone to fact-check for us, and pointing out our inaccuracies. Whereas EB will suffer more and more with every similar study, we can only stand to benefit.
Steve